Are we a cult?

[CyclingSam]

I keep reading that sex realists, of which I am one, are a cult. Perhaps a genderist could be so kind as to explain what a cult is, and why we qualify. Sometimes one of us calls them a cult too. Who has a better case, hmmm?

Good genuine question. Just thought it through below and it evolved into an essay. Sorry... Scroll on by, everyone!

@AimsAndObjectives, I guess what I need is to see the original thread which led to her posting the pic, and the post itself, words included. I probably shouldn't have judged it without that (but don't anybody paste it again, please - imagine the ructions!)

Without that, though, I think it was a bit... provocative? Which, given how intelligent and strategic she is, will have been an informed decision, and goodness knows she fights the good fight, but...

Sometimes I wish she'd hold back a bit on stuff that can be quite so easily exploited as fuel-to-the-fire of the "evil bigot" narrative. There are fence-sitters who see the FW pic but don't read the thread or hours of Twix warfare - or even the essays - and make their choice accordingly. Of course this is massively outweighed by the good she does, but I sometimes feel like she slips into their style of online debate, when hers can be so much better.

We're dealing with people who see things in such black-and-white terms - who are desperate to see things in black-and-white terms, actually frightened of not doing. And I think it can help to bear that in mind. It's one of the reasons GC feminists are so misrepresented. Either we explain the complex context (women's history and ongoing invisibility, feminist thinking about gender etc.) - and duly lack a pithily reductive mantra like TWAW, so get ignored or derided or misunderstood. Or, we rebel and yell, "He's a man!" or whatever - and duly get attention... and derided and misrepresented. It's maddening! JKR walks that tightrope with finesse a lot of the time.

And with all these black-and-white thinkers and bad-faith players desperate for any perceived crumb, posting the FW pic creates space for the kind of silliness we're seeing on this thread. It demands either nuance which can then be ignored or "misunderstood" (explaining, hopelessly, the - to us painfully bloody obvious - difference between the FW pic and misogynist crime, FFS!) Or it's just exploited as hypocrisy, muddying yet another word we need - upskirting.

But then, of course, you can counter all this by saying, "How the hell is any of that our fault? We've tiptoed around enough, and where has it got us?" And that's true, too. Why the hell should JKR have to think of any of this, when the context is posting evidence of a bloke behaving massively inappropriately? The only reply is, I guess, that the context is also a society that's still more keen to condemn her for posting the evidence, than him for his exhibitionism. Do we fight that by saying "Fuck it!" as she did? Maybe it is the only way, and maybe it's the most ethical, demonstrative way - no more Victorian "feminine" caution. Or maybe we need to be more canny.

Whatever, it all pisses me right off that we even need to theorise and discuss and debate at all.

because I’m ok with the idea that trans women are women.

The problem is that if that idea is adopted in legislation, you can no longer define sex so all the laws and policies that protect women and gay people from discrimination get thrown out the window.

Without the concept of sex, you also lose the concept of trans. (Although to a large extent it has been lost already because people say things like 'trans women are women'.)

Thanks to you two, I just went out and bought Ben and Jerries.

We just don't understand why.

From our point of view it's a bit like saying the earth is 4,000 years old.

(Although that does tie in with the whole identifying with a feminine gender thing).

Yep.

I am quite concerned by the discussions though that ignore the sitting position adopted quite specifically.

I think we've now got to the point where statements like 'transwomen are women' really should just be countered with 'of course they're not, don't be so fucking stupid'.

No amount of evidence of harm caused by the erosion of single sex spaces seems to get through. No amount of kindness or appeals to see it from the pov of women who have to self exclude from rape crisis services or who are terrorised by violent male sex offenders in the female prison estate makes the slightest bit of difference to TRA's.

Are you suprised I’m not gender critical? I would have thought my views were fairly clear before this point tbh!

No, it is not clear at all why you look at Fred Wallace and think 'what a lovely lady I must defend him on the internet one day'.

Maybe explain and we can understand?

Harry Potter is absolutely full of textual evidence that JK Rowling is disgusted by some body types, and keen to humiliate

Just to build on my above, this is the kind of thinking I mean. A global canon of stereotype, archetype, parody and satire; the Roald Dahl tradition of classic children's fiction; the reality of human nature and the death of the author... all reduced into the above absolutist condemnation.

I really, really dislike this tendency to deny who and what we are nowadays. We're animals. We don't see clearly or think clearly. We're tribal, driven by biological imperative. Avenue Q's "Everyone's a little bit racist". The fact that when I was in my scared-of-flying period, on hearing I was on a plane with a female pilot, for a split second I felt more scared, against every rational truth I know and believe.

The way to make humanity better is not to deny what we are in pursuit of some kind of impossible utopian ideal. It's certainly not to interpret an author using the age-old tool of clumsy caricature to encourage kids to read as a "Bad Person Who Is Keen To Humiliate".

Doing that? Well, it's another example of that tribalism, really. The tells are the total dismissal of the slightest possibility of the context I outline above, and the extreme language used. Call her out, and I'm safe, at least. Not a pretty instinct, either - indeed, the same one that leads to fat-shaming.

Black and white, instead of grey.

We are almost at the end of the thread, and although there has been much discussion of JK Rowling, yet again there has been no explanation of why sex discrimination law should be repealed, or how one would even know that one is a woman if the term does not relate to sex.

We also haven’t made a final decision on the dress code. Which everyone seems to have lost sight of.

Not fishnets.

Surely 'transwomen' are sexualised in the media because a clear majority of them are sexual fetishists, not because of 'transmisogyny'.
'Transmen' are not sexual fetishists (maybe a few are, who knows) and so they do not get portrayed that way.
'Transmisogyny' is simply an attempt to appropriate another word that belongs to women. The TIMs want it to be misogyny because that helps their affirmation, but it is simply a response to fetishistic behaviour in many cases or a sort of phobia of the feminine in the case of homosexual transsexuals (which I agree is related to misogyny).

Arriving unfashionably late as ever. Am I in time for any exciting culty behaviour, or have I missed the lovebombing and we're onto the shunning already?

I vote sackcloth and ashes pls

I genuinely bought a lovely pair of art deco inspired fishnet tights recently and am now wondering if I have tran-trans misogyny'ed myself...

Hence why I assumed the poster was a man. Not something I usually do, but when a poster comes at things from a men are women if they say they are stance, and I'll now claim to define myself as a subset of women as well to make the men feel better about claiming womanhood, I genuinely struggle to understand why a woman would think like that.

Cult-like behaviour!
Arguing that every single reputable mainstream organisation is ‘captured’. That includes all major medical orgs, unions, women’s groups, charities, the UN etc. No evidence is given for this except that they have the temerity to disagree with the people on this board.

Idolisation of someone seen as a ‘leader’. Well plenty of evidence for this with regards to JK Rowling on this thread and it extends to demonising anyone critical of her children’s books. One might think that some people have never read further than Harry Potter.

‘Information’ that is only from youtube videos, anti-trans orgs, twitter, or supposedly word of mouth. Many links to far right sites and videos because nothing counts as far right as long as it is against trans people.

Losing friends and family. Many people come on here saying their friends/family disagree with them. Overwhelmingly they are told that they are either ‘captured’, ‘scared’ or ‘stupid’. Advice is usually to get new friends who agree i.e. the people on this board.

‘We are about women’s rights’ - except there is no-one too homophobic, transphobic, racist or sexist as long as they are against trans people. Any criticism becomes a ‘purity spiral’ so that ideas you have, have moved (perhaps without you noticing) to all sorts of bigotry. Women who disagree with you are ‘handmaidens’, ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’, ‘scared’ or ‘captured’.

If anyone does come with an argument they are repeatedly insulted, told they have no argument, told they are men, told they are trolls or there are numerous posts about tea cakes - until people either agree or go away. They are also presented with false assertions about what they have said, so that the original point made is obscured. It happens so often it is surely purposeful.

There is an obvious shift towards opposing bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. Despite constantly saying that people on here are ‘life-long lefties’ there is no actual evidence of that. Cue much satisfaction from ‘the wise women of mumsnet’, and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Support for violent men as long as they are against trans people. The Royce White case is one of many where people ignore domestic violence perpetrators if they are ‘on the same side’. And talking of the WNBA, if anyone is actually interested in women’s sports in the US then you should read the real threat, which is coming from the Heritage Foundation as an attack on title IX. MAGA is laughing their socks off at the opportunity this manufactured culture war is giving them. https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/title-ixs-failed-experiment-why-accommodating-sex-differences-beats-engineered-parity

Everyone secretly agrees with you but no-one will say so because they’re ‘scared’. Trans people are both all powerful and a tiny minority who no-one cares about. The cognitive dissonance this must create is - well …

Governments all support trans people to the detriment of women apparently, ignoring that the most powerful government in the world attacks both trans and women’s rights. Trans people are ‘fetishists’, ‘perverts’, ‘AGP’ or ‘mentally ill’ - unless it’s trans men who are ‘vulnerable’, ‘young’ ‘really lesbians’ etc etc etc. Trans children don’t exist, or need saving - until they hit 18 when they suddenly become ‘porn-addled’.

‘Humans understanding biology is not a cult’ - except you don’t understand biology or the fact that the majority of scientists (yes yes I know they’re all captured) think that human biology is complex, interesting, and there is much to learn. Reducing everyone to XX or XY is a simplistic model that leads to seeing women as mere baby carriers. Perhaps that is what the majority of posters on this board want - if so perhaps they should be honest about it.

The attitude to intersex people on this board is pretty disgusting - and I’m sure someone will now say ‘everyone is male or female’ - so ask yourself the question ‘who decides that’ and why, when genitalia, chromosomes and hormones may not match in the way you think they should. Why can’t intersex people live their lives as who they are rather than fitting neatly into a box that society has made.

There is no room in any of these descriptions for nuance, humanity or the fact that trans people, like the rest of us, are muddling through our lives. This is supposed to be a ‘discussion’ board, but the reality is it’s a board for a few hundred people who constantly congratulate themselves on knowing the ‘truth’ and think their gotcha questions are a sign of debate. There is also glee at misgendering as if, somehow, this is fighting for women’s rights.

This whole thread is an example of how, when confronted with some evidence that lots of women don’t agree with GCs and many people think that the board demonstrates cult-like behaviour - the ‘regulars’ come on swiftly to shut the conversation down with lurid tales of trans people.

For those who will now pop up and say I’m a troll or I’ve posted and run. Yes I’ve posted and run - so don’t bother with your gotcha questions designed to put people off. The majority on this board are not worth engaging with because they’re not interested in fighting for women’s rights but maybe - maybe - there are some who are not too far gone.

It's a fascinating response. Preferable to dilute our collective understanding of misogyny - hatred of the female body, and females - than to offend the sensibilities of the individual. It feels like a naive way of thinking, coming from a position of privilege. Once we've sorted out the medical misogyny killing women in their thousands, however they identify, I'll worry about whether a transman may be offended by being included in a transformative paper about heart attack diagnosis.

It's not the fat/pig connection that is the reach. That's pretty much a go to old school metaphor.

It's that you concluded from that "JKR has a disgust of bodies" when "JKR is consciously or unknowingly echoing Pinocchio", Alice in Wonderland, or even Spirited Away or The Odessey would seem a much more logical, contextualised reading.

@Catiette thanks to your thoughtful (as ever) responses.

I like that JKR gives a voice to what many of us are feeling. She affirms us, if you like😃Not to say that there isn't also a place for caution and one for being canny, but I think a lot of us are at the Fuck It stage. Posting a photo of an obviously fetishistic man and saying it is ok to call out his fetish will embolden many women. We have been taught how to be cautious, she helps us to be bold.

You're welcome.

Yes I’ve posted and run - so don’t bother with your gotcha questions designed to put people off.

Of course.

To counter all that shite, I would suggest that anyone interested could have a wee read of 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' - a two times best seller.

Rather graceful, I think.

Yeah, but female people still exist and that still has consequences. And all the word salad and quivery pointy fingers won;t change that one little bit.

So until someone can give me a reasonable explanation why a man's maybe very sincrere belief that he feels like a woman makes him so interchangeable with the mtaerial reality of being female that not only are his needs and mine both perfectly served by the exact same type of "woman-only" rights, protections and resources, not only does it suddenly makes complete sense that his history his experience and his oppression is not that of a male body but born of the exploitation of female ones, but these things are so fundamental that we no longer even need separate words for male people and female, only words that describe different personalities - that the differences between the male and female halfs of humanity are less worthy of notice than the difference between two slightly less blonde shades of light hair....

Until someone can do that thing, that one small thing that surely must be so simple for TRAs to be so sure and so happy to pull down everything that supports female people in this world, forgive me but I'm going to stick with the people who think female people actualy matter.

Perhaps it's because various prominent transwomen have made rather a point of sexualising themselves. Read the quotations in the image posted at 17: 20 on this thread.
There was no need for anyone else to say anything; they told us who they were.

Only because I'd removed the knickers after a terrible dress rehearsal meant I really did keep getting my knickers in a twist! Health and Safety insisted I remove the hazard from the act.